Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4584.1562943879@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs
Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs |
Список | pgsql-docs |
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: > To take into account Tom's comment, I'd suggest a middle ground by > commenting a public and private part explicitely in the struct, something > like: > typedef struct { > /* PUBLIC members to be used by callers ... */ > ... > ... > /* PRIVATE members, not intended for external usage ... */ > ... > } ... ; One problem is that the members we've retroactively decided are "public" are in the middle of the struct :-(. But it occurs to me that there's no good reason we couldn't re-order the members, as long as we only do so on HEAD and not in released versions. That would make it a bit less inconsistent and easier to add labels such as you suggest. > Note: I'm probaly not a member of the pgdoc list, so the delivery may fail > there. FYI, I believe the current policy is that as long as you're subscribed to at least one PG list you can post to any of them. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: